Editorial: Proposition 37 unneeded, unfair

Our view: California is the highest-producing agricultural state in the nation. We shouldn't slap unnecessary regulations on a successful industry.

With 11 often dense propositions on the Nov. 6 ballot, it's a natural inclination for voters to just look at a quick summary and ignore the full text of longer measures. Some proposition pushers are counting on that.

It's obviously written by people who believe organic farming deserves favored status, while all other farmers should be hounded and questioned by consumers and the government.

Proposition 37 asks whether genetically engineered foods should be labeled. And if that's all any voter considers, the proposition will pass easily. "Genetically engineered" sounds scary. Certainly people should know, right?

But read a little more into it, and you'll learn that it's not all genetically engineered foods, only certain ones. There are exemptions for certified organic food, for animals that eat genetically engineered food, for alcohol, milk (but not soy milk) and cheese, and for food sold in restaurants.

And ask yourself this question: If "GE food" sounds scary, then how many people get sick or die from it? The answer: nobody.

The risk of GE food is unknown. That means there's no known risk. Proposition 37 proponents, however, would like people to believe that's a huge risk. They imply that GE foods — "frankenfoods," as they like to call them — will harm you.

The truth about GE food is that it's everywhere. The ballot pamphlet says 88 percent of corn and 94 percent of soybeans are grown from GE seeds. For example, corn that's engineered to be resistant to weeds or disease — that's the dreaded GE food this proposition attempts to target.

If this is such a big issue, why aren't organic farmers and "natural foods" companies using a big "No GE" label on their packaging. They can do so now. Not many do.

There's one other wrinkle to the unfair proposition. If Proposition 37 and its confusing language are adopted, there will be lawsuits over violations of labeling requirements. Individuals can sue for violations, and you can bet that attorneys will turn these lawsuits into a profit center — settle with us for $20,000 and we'll go away.

That's good for lawyers but bad for farmers.

If it seems odd that California, the nation's top-producing agricultural state, is attempting to be the first state to slap GE labels on food ... well, that seems strange to us, too. And unnecessary. We're sure that voters in our area, who know more about agricultural practices than urban residents in the rest of the state, will reject Proposition 37. Farmers don't need more regulations and unnecessary labels.

Unfortunately, we fear voters in the rest of the state will take the superficial view and approve the measure.

We urge north state residents to counter the uninformed and vote no on 37.